A New York appellate court has denied the motion for reinstatement of Mary Elizabeth Rain, a suspended attorney and former District Attorney of St. Lawrence County. The decision, issued on April 30, 2026, affects Rain's ability to practice law following her suspension due to multiple violations of professional conduct rules. This ruling is significant as it underscores the court's commitment to maintaining ethical standards within the legal profession.
Rain was initially suspended in June 2018 after a hearing determined that she had engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court found that she had violated 12 separate Rules of Professional Conduct during her tenure as District Attorney from 2013 to 2017. The issues included improper use of grand jury subpoenas, unlawful use of student interns, and failure to disclose critical evidence during a homicide trial.
The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department was the petitioner in this case, opposing Rain's motion for reinstatement. Rain's attorney, James C. Knox from Hacker Murphy LLP, represented her in the proceedings. The court's ruling reflects the serious nature of the violations and the importance of demonstrating both compliance with suspension orders and a commitment to ethical legal practice.
The court's decision to deny Rain's reinstatement was based on her failure to meet the required three-part test for reinstatement. According to the court, Rain did not provide clear and convincing evidence that she had complied with the suspension order, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness to practice law, or shown that her reinstatement would be in the public interest.
In its ruling, the court stated, "While respondent has provided information concerning advocacy work that she has engaged in since her suspension, we conclude that she has not demonstrated that, in the intervening years since her suspension, she has meaningfully addressed the factors that led to her suspension in this state." This statement highlights the court's concern that Rain had not sufficiently addressed the issues that led to her initial suspension.
Furthermore, the court noted that Rain's application materials lacked tangible details about her intentions if reinstated, failing to provide assurances that her return would not harm the public or the legal profession. The court emphasized the necessity of ensuring that reinstatement would benefit the public interest, stating, "...her reinstatement would cause no detriment to the institutions and individuals whom the legal profession is intended to serve."
The ruling also cited previous cases to support its decision, referencing Matter of Del Boccio and Matter of Cammarano, which outline the standards for reinstatement after suspension. The court's careful consideration of these precedents demonstrates its commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession.
This decision has broader implications for attorneys seeking reinstatement after suspension. It reinforces the necessity for attorneys to not only comply with suspension orders but also to actively demonstrate their commitment to ethical practice and public service. The court's rigorous standards for reinstatement serve as a warning to other attorneys about the consequences of professional misconduct.
Looking ahead, Mary Rain may have the option to appeal this ruling, although the court filing did not specify any immediate plans for an appeal. If she chooses to pursue this route, it could prolong her absence from the legal profession. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court opinion.
In summary, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has denied Mary Elizabeth Rain's motion for reinstatement, emphasizing the importance of ethical conduct and public trust in the legal profession. This ruling serves as a reminder of the serious consequences that can arise from violations of professional conduct rules.